Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

Originally Posted by mcpeepants232003

Warmack is a great prospect but OG never, I mean never get taken in the top twenty picks. There's been one in like 10 years. Let's not forget how good a prospect Decastro was and he still didn't get drafted until pick 24.

Plus RT is a far bigger need. If it's take Matthews or Warmack I take Matthews just because of how badly we need a RT.

I disagree. After the new Rookie salary cap I dont think it matters as much where you draft a Guard. I also believe that Guard is a much bigger need than RT.

To stay on topic I would rather have Dwayne Bowe than Wallace, But Wallace wouldn't be a bad consolation prize.

Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

^ I've seen numerous analysts talk about how the Steelers passing game has stopped focusing on the deep ball and instead is focusing on the short passing game. With Antonio Brown, Sanders and Wallace this would seem like a huge mistake but they are averaging nearly the same amount of points(21 this year almost 21 last year) and Big Ben actually seems to be putting up better numbers(besides in YPA where he's down to 7.2 from nearly 8 last year).

Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

Originally Posted by Rambos

So if I'm hearing you... you now think RT Richardson is good enough. I recall you had him as one of the worst tackles in the NFL at the start of the year. You now believe Rodger Saffold our LT is no longer injury prone? I recall you saying he always is going to be hurt... or something to that effect.

Do you really have that much faith in this line... just add a rookie OG and we are set?

Our LT is still often injured, but they are freak injuries. Its contingent upon whether he can continue to stay healthy, and I never said anything about RT. We could go trade for one, sign someone, or even draft someone (WE GOT ANOTHER FIRST ROUNDER!).

Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

Originally Posted by Nick

Look, I'm not saying he's blameless in his slump. He shares in some part of the responsibility, I'm sure. But when you've got Leftwich and Batch at quarterback, you're not going to put up big numbers, offensively. To me, that's probably the biggest factor, especially when you look at what Wallace was averaging prior to Big Ben going down.

Here's what Pro Football Focus had to say about the Steelers' Week 12 loss to the Browns, of which Wallace only had one reception (I believe)...

So yes, while Wallace had a drop that resulted in a turnover, he also did not have a QB that could consistently take advantage of his abilities. He shares in some of the blame for his numbers, but the larger factor (at least as I see it) is who is delivering the ball.

As for the coach's decision to bench him or split his starting job with someone else, it could be any number of things. As fans, it's impossible for us to really get a true reading of the motivation behind a move unless we're explicitly told. But since he's also benching Mendenhall, Tomlin could be trying to just mix it up to try and spur some better play, to motivate. Wallace may not be particularly motivated after his summer contract dispute and watching the Steelers instead give $40+ million to Brown instead of him.

It could also be because he sees the writing on the wall when it comes to Wallace leaving in free agency, and wants to see how Sanders does in that role when given the opportunity. Because chances are, the Steelers are going to have to plan for life after Mike Wallace, so maybe this gives them the opportunity to do that.

I'm not a huge Bleacher Report fan in terms of legitimate information, but I did think this write up about Wallace and Pittsburgh offered an interesting perspective to at least consider in regards to this discussion...

I did a little reading on this and I came across this...

But in Wallace’s last two games – both without quarterback Ben Roethlisberger – he has caught five balls for 33 yards. Over that same span, Sanders has caught eight passes for 157 yards.

“Depending on situations, we’re capable of using either,” Tomlin said. “Emmanuel’s been very consistent as of late in helping us. We see some situations where we want to utilize his skills in two-receiver sets. And obviously, there are going to be some situations where we want to utilize Mike’s skills. That’s why we listed them in that manner.”

Maybe Sanders is a better fit for the skill sets of the back up QBs and they want to use him a bit more until Ben gets back.

Benched to me is what we did to Smith inactive for the game. Wallace will still play a lot come Sunday IMO.

Going back to my original statement.

I guess he is only as good as Big Ben makes him.

It became painfully obvious that Batch lacked the arm strength to take advantage of what a deep threat Wallace can be, underthrowing him horribly on several occasions.

There is some truth to that, he needs a strong armed QB to take advantage of his speed. That being said I'm sure Bradford fits that bill.

Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

If you mean Wallace - like any receiver - suffers when there is sub par talent behind center who cannot accurately get him the ball, then yes.

If you mean Big Ben makes Wallace good when he otherwise wouldn't be, then I don't think there is.

Originally Posted by Rambos

Again I think we already have a deep threat WR on our team.

And again, if you only view him as a deep threat, then you're making a mistake IMO. The numbers simply don't support that, even in last year's more aggressive Pittsburgh offense.

Again, simply looking at PFF's breakdown of receivers who accounted for at least 50% of their team's deep targets last year, Wallace ranked 19th out of 31 in total targets of more than 20 yards downfield. Compare this to a guy like When analyzed as a percentage of his total targets, Wallace was targeted 113 times last season and only 24 were beyond 20 yards downfield. That's a percentage of 21.2% which ranks him 25th of 31 on the list.

For comparison's sake, guys like Vincent Jackson, Hakeem Nicks, A.J. Green, Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald had a larger deep target percentage than Wallace in 2011. Compare Wallace to a guy like Torrey Smith, who is ranked third in # of deep targets and first in deep target percentage. If Wallace had Smith's numbers, you'd have a point. But if anything, he's pretty far away from Smith.

Being a deep threat is not the only trick Wallace has up his sleeve, but thinking about where the Rams' offense could go in the future, it wouldn't exactly be a bad thing to have more than one guy capable of stretching the field vertically.

Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

If you mean Wallace - like any receiver - suffers when there is sub par talent behind center who cannot accurately get him the ball, then yes.

If you mean Big Ben makes Wallace good when he otherwise wouldn't be, then I don't think there is.

And again, if you only view him as a deep threat, then you're making a mistake IMO. The numbers simply don't support that, even in last year's more aggressive Pittsburgh offense.

Again, simply looking at PFF's breakdown of receivers who accounted for at least 50% of their team's deep targets last year, Wallace ranked 19th out of 31 in total targets of more than 20 yards downfield. Compare this to a guy like When analyzed as a percentage of his total targets, Wallace was targeted 113 times last season and only 24 were beyond 20 yards downfield. That's a percentage of 21.2% which ranks him 25th of 31 on the list.

For comparison's sake, guys like Vincent Jackson, Hakeem Nicks, A.J. Green, Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald had a larger deep target percentage than Wallace in 2011. Compare Wallace to a guy like Torrey Smith, who is ranked third in # of deep targets and first in deep target percentage. If Wallace had Smith's numbers, you'd have a point. But if anything, he's pretty far away from Smith.

Being a deep threat is not the only trick Wallace has up his sleeve, but thinking about where the Rams' offense could go in the future, it wouldn't exactly be a bad thing to have more than one guy capable of stretching the field vertically.

Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

Originally Posted by mcpeepants232003

Warmack is a great prospect but OG never, I mean never get taken in the top twenty picks. There's been one in like 10 years. Let's not forget how good a prospect Decastro was and he still didn't get drafted until pick 24.

Plus RT is a far bigger need. If it's take Matthews or Warmack I take Matthews just because of how badly we need a RT.

Decastro was considered a steal for Pittsburgh

And also that 1 guard taken in the top 20 is a key piece to one of the better offensive lines in football

Originally Posted by lostsoul

I disagree. After the new Rookie salary cap I dont think it matters as much where you draft a Guard. I also believe that Guard is a much bigger need than RT.

To stay on topic I would rather have Dwayne Bowe than Wallace, But Wallace wouldn't be a bad consolation prize.

Im starting to come around on Wallace if we dont give him the contract he wants (11 mil a year)...I wanted Bowe too he caught 15 TD passes from Matt Cassel in 2010 and is a red zone threat but he has just quit on the chiefs which is unacceptable but lets see where his head is at in the off-season

Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

Originally Posted by Nick

If you mean Wallace - like any receiver - suffers when there is sub par talent behind center who cannot accurately get him the ball, then yes.

Sanders has caught eight passes for 157 yards. Seems like he is doing fine with the back ups. Bruce played with how many sub par QB before Warner? Wallace is a good WR IMO but he's not worth a huge contract that he is seeking IMO.

If you mean Big Ben makes Wallace good when he otherwise wouldn't be, then I don't think there is.

I think Ben fits what he does well, and there are other QBs that could do the same. It would be good for Wallace, a guy that wants a huge contract to step up now, when the season is on the line with a back QB. If we paid him big money and Sam went down would you say well he is playing with a back so.... five balls for 33 yards is OK. No you would be saying come on dude we paid you and you are a better then this or at least I thought you where.

And again, if you only view him as a deep threat, then you're making a mistake IMO. The numbers simply don't support that, even in last year's more aggressive Pittsburgh offense.

Again, simply looking at PFF's breakdown of receivers who accounted for at least 50% of their team's deep targets last year, Wallace ranked 19th out of 31 in total targets of more than 20 yards downfield. Compare this to a guy like When analyzed as a percentage of his total targets, Wallace was targeted 113 times last season and only 24 were beyond 20 yards downfield. That's a percentage of 21.2% which ranks him 25th of 31 on the list.

For comparison's sake, guys like Vincent Jackson, Hakeem Nicks, A.J. Green, Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald had a larger deep target percentage than Wallace in 2011. Compare Wallace to a guy like Torrey Smith, who is ranked third in # of deep targets and first in deep target percentage. If Wallace had Smith's numbers, you'd have a point. But if anything, he's pretty far away from Smith.

Again nice job... I think his deep ball threat is what he does best... I don't think he is special when it comes to the underneath routes. If he was he would be helping the back up QBs more, instead Tomlin wants to bring in Sanders.

Tomlin said. “Emmanuel’s been very consistent as of late in helping us. We see some situations where we want to utilize his skills in two-receiver sets.

Sounds to me like he is a better route runner.

larger deep target percentage

Meaning they threw at them more often. Does not mean Wallace does not get his fair share of deep balls. He is very efficient and Ben and Wallace has something special IMO.

Being a deep threat is not the only trick Wallace has up his sleeve, but thinking about where the Rams' offense could go in the future, it wouldn't exactly be a bad thing to have more than one guy capable of stretching the field vertically.

I agree with this for sure... how much will he cost? Right he's very expensive. Draft one! Develop the second rounder Quick. IMO we can't keep wasting high draft picks.

Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

Originally Posted by BarronWade

Decastro was considered a steal for Pittsburgh

And also that 1 guard taken in the top 20 is a key piece to one of the better offensive lines in football

Im starting to come around on Wallace if we dont give him the contract he wants (11 mil a year)...I wanted Bowe too he caught 15 TD passes from Matt Cassel in 2010 and is a red zone threat but he has just quit on the chiefs which is unacceptable but lets see where his head is at in the off-season

I know DeCastro is a steal I'm just saying no matter how good Warmack is most NFL execs will not take a guard in the top 20 picks.

With how deep this years draft is in interior linemen I'd much rather take Matthews and a Te,OLB, S then take a guard later in the draft. RT is just a much bigger weakness than either guard position.

Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

Originally Posted by Rambos

Sanders has caught eight passes for 157 yards. Seems like he is doing fine with the back ups.

There's no denying that he's been productive over the last three games, probably for a number of reasons. For instance, I bet it helps that he's got a Pro Bowl caliber receiver drawing attention across from him.

You should know from your many discussions defending Sam Bradford from people who just quote the stat line that the truth is frequently more nuanced than just the numbers in the box score.

For example, while Wallace only made four receptions for 24 yards two weeks ago against Baltimore, what doesn't show up on the stat line is the 40+ yard pass interference call he drew by getting behind his defender on the Steelers' lone touchdown drive. Just something to consider.

Originally Posted by Rambos

Meaning they threw at them more often. Does not mean Wallace does not get his fair share of deep balls. He is very efficient and Ben and Wallace has something special IMO.

I'm not sure where this straw man came from, as no one is suggesting the Steelers don't throw deep to him, simply that he isn't solely a deep guy. And that's the implication you make, when your argument for not pursuing him is that we already have a deep threat, as if that's the only role he'd fill. Wallace is more than that, as I've thoroughly pointed out with the help of PFF's numbers.

Originally Posted by Rambos

I agree with this for sure... how much will he cost? Right he's very expensive. Draft one! Develop the second rounder Quick. IMO we can't keep wasting high draft picks.

We've tried that strategy. In the last five drafts, the Rams have selected nine receivers. We're still waiting on one of them to develop into a long-term starter for this team.

Maybe you think one of this year's prospects can come in and make an immediate impact. Of the list of possible first-round prospects in this year's class, I'm skeptical and not convinced by this strategy.

We already have guys on this roster that are going to need time to develop, yet you want to spend a pick on yet another one. If we were talking about a receiver so talented that his impact would be felt immediately, I could see the logic. But I don't know that I see that receiver in this class.

The bottom line is, while our young players take time to develop, this offense needs a legitimate and consistent outside weapon now. That's why a free agent makes more sense than another rookie project, IMO.

Not sure what the last regime lack of ability at finding receivers has to do with this one. The new FO looks to be more then capable of finding and developing talent. It's one thing to draft them, it's another to know how you use them. The Colts are finding a way to use Avery, the old FO could not, they cut him.

In the last two weeks against two of the best defenses in the NFL. Bradford has targeted Givens 20 times and completed 16.

I will stay pat after week 12 and say Givens, Amendola, Quick and a rookie works for me. Use the cap money elsewhere.

By the way while Givens had 11 catches for 92 yards... Wallace again struggled 5 catches for 44 yards. I watched the game after the Rams game. The announcers said he was pouting over not getting enough passes. On the NFLN Michael Irvin called him out and said, you want to get paid like a big boy play like one.

The bottom line is, while our young players take time to develop, this offense needs a legitimate and consistent outside weapon now.

Mike Wallace Benched?

Not sure what the last regime lack of ability at finding receivers has to do with this one. The new FO looks to be more then capable of finding and developing talent. It's one thing to draft them, it's another to know how you use them. The Colts are finding a way to use Avery, the old FO could not, they cut him.

In the last two weeks against two of the best defenses in the NFL. Bradford has targeted Givens 20 times and completed 16.

I will stay pat after week 12 and say Givens, Amendola, Quick and a rookie works for me. Use the cap money elsewhere.

By the way while Givens had 11 catches for 92 yards... Wallace again struggled 5 catches for 44 yards. I watched the game after the Rams game. The announcers said he was pouting over not getting enough passes. On the NFLN Michael Irvin called him out and said, you want to get paid like a big boy play like one.

I would not mind a receiving corp of Amendola, givens, Quick, and a rookie. I want to say bring back Gibson because he's a veteran and is still relatively young but wow after last few weeks of watching him with little production on the field as we see Donnie Avery, danario Alexander do really well...

Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

Not sure what the last regime lack of ability at finding receivers has to do with this one. The new FO looks to be more then capable of finding and developing talent. It's one thing to draft them, it's another to know how you use them. The Colts are finding a way to use Avery, the old FO could not, they cut him.

In the last two weeks against two of the best defenses in the NFL. Bradford has targeted Givens 20 times and completed 16.

I will stay pat after week 12 and say Givens, Amendola, Quick and a rookie works for me. Use the cap money elsewhere.

By the way while Givens had 11 catches for 92 yards... Wallace again struggled 5 catches for 44 yards. I watched the game after the Rams game. The announcers said he was pouting over not getting enough passes. On the NFLN Michael Irvin called him out and said, you want to get paid like a big boy play like one.

You keep acting like it's a chose between the two. Instead of having Amendola and Givens and whoever is ready to contribute we could have Wallace, Givens and Amendola. There should be no argument that Wallace would make our offense much more dangerous.

This isn't the 80's or 90's it's best for any team to have multiple talented receivers who can play different roles and help the team succeed.

Once again I bring up the fact that Amendola gets injured a ton. If we choose to stand pat or draft a receiver it's likely we have to watch Gibson and Pettis play big roles when neither has shown they are capable of playing at a high level.

There is no reason for us to not add another wide receiver. In fact it's quite obvious we need another receiving weapon. The choices come down to waiting for a young receiver to develop or adding a proven young veteran with big play potential and 2 1,000 yard seasons under his belt already. It seems like an easy choice to make imo.

Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

Originally Posted by mcpeepants232003

You keep acting like it's a chose between the two. Instead of having Amendola and Givens and whoever is ready to contribute we could have Wallace, Givens and Amendola. There should be no argument that Wallace would make our offense much more dangerous.

This isn't the 80's or 90's it's best for any team to have multiple talented receivers who can play different roles and help the team succeed.

I never said he would not make our offense much more dangerous. Can you find a quote where I said that? What I have said is HE COST TOO MUCH! For what he is seeking he is not worth the price tag IMO.

How much cap space do we have? You tell me... IMHO I would not add another receiver that we can't afford.

Once again I bring up the fact that Amendola gets injured a ton. If we choose to stand pat or draft a receiver it's likely we have to watch Gibson and Pettis play big roles when neither has shown they are capable of playing at a high level.

And who else would also be on the roster if he went down? You tell me....

Once again I bring up the fact that Amendola gets injured a ton.

Fair enough how much are you willing to sign DA for since you already have him missing so much time... Should we sign him at all?

If we choose to stand pat or draft a receiver it's likely we have to watch Gibson and Pettis play big roles when neither has shown they are capable of playing at a high level.

I'm not sure Gibson is even here next year. Since Givens has stepped up... Gibson has not had a catch in two games.

There is no reason for us to not add another wide receiver.

Did I not say to draft one, which you fail to mention again....

In fact it's quite obvious we need another receiving weapon.

Some of us not you think Quick will improve next year, some of us do think a rookie much like Givens IF called upon can play and play well. Givens is doing it and YOU act like it still can't be done by a rookie.

The choices come down to waiting for a young receiver to develop

How long did we wait for Givens to develop... you tell me? Four or Five games into this year if you look at his numbers.

or adding a proven young veteran with big play potential and 2 1,000 yard seasons under his belt already. It seems like an easy choice to make imo.

OK if that is so easy, why did we not sign him this off season? You tell me how much he wants per year? Or how much he was asking for last year?

So you tell me how we are going to sign two first round picks, an elite FA receiver, Amendola, SJax if you think we need too... and any other upgrades.

Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

I will stay pat after week 12 and say Givens, Amendola, Quick and a rookie works for me. Use the cap money elsewhere.

And I will simply agree to disagree, because it's not worth the time continuing to debate point by point when it's clear we won't find common ground.

Originally Posted by mcpeepants232003

There is no reason for us to not add another wide receiver. In fact it's quite obvious we need another receiving weapon. The choices come down to waiting for a young receiver to develop or adding a proven young veteran with big play potential and 2 1,000 yard seasons under his belt already. It seems like an easy choice to make imo.

Exactly. For as impressive as Givens has been these last couple of weeks, the offense is still underwhelming - two touchdowns in the last two weeks.

Clearly we need more, so the question becomes to your answer in free agency or the draft. I think this team is ready to compete now rather than wait for another rookie to develop into a capable starter, if they ever do. Besides, when you're looking at the first round, the Rams' needs on the offensive line - OG and RT - are strengths of this draft class, IMO.

We have a young guy in Givens who is a frontrunner to start in 2013, we still have Quick who hasn't had much impact but can continue to develop, let's strike on a free agent who can change the dynamics from Day One.